Interpreting the Republican Revolution of 1994^1995 Contents A Supplement to Accompany Preface v THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY Section One: The Republican Party Government in America - and Responsible Party Government Results of the 1994 Election 1 Fourth Edition and Brief Second Edition Explaining the Election Results \ Th£ Organizational Factor 5 \ The Contract with America 5 Kenneth Janda Responsible Party Government 10 Northwestern University Section Two: Congress and the President 11 Revolution in the House 11 Jeffrey M. Berry A Binding Contract 16 Tufts University House-Senate Differences 18 The Dole-Gramm Fight 19 Diminishing the Congress 20 Jerry Goldman More Majoritarianism, But Not Less Pluralism '21 Northwestern University A White House in Retreat 22 Conflict and Cooperation 23 'Section Three: Public Policy 27 Reducing the National Government 27 Unfunded Mandates 28 Welfare and Responsibility 29 (1 The Supreme Court and the Commerce Clause 31 Expanding the National Government 34 TenorFrom Within 35 Civil Justice Reform 37 i i Protecting the Children} 38 Affirmative Action: Ready for Reconsideration? 39 t >> Afterword 41 ' References 41 1 Appendices 44 Houghton Mifflin Company Boston Toronto 1 u iii Geneva, Illinois Palo Alto Princeton,. New Jersey i / 4 b%%•-.•.- * •;'»*'a,'-:*' : &:? ••';••'-'••:''-^£-^r>-' h-faklx?,'" *•& - •- Preface tiovf can anyone make sense of American "politics? "For four''decades, Republican candidates dominated presidential' politics, winning seven of eleven- elections—three by landslide -victories (Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, Richard Nixon in 1972, and Roriald'Reagan in 4984). But for those same four decades, the Republican Party failed to gain control of Con­ gress. Then,*just two years after voters-abruptly rejected-President Bush and elected Bill Clinton as the first Democratic president "in twelve years, the Republicans suddenly won both chambers of Corigress in the midterm elections of 1994. Heading into those elections, most political analysts thought that the Republicans.had only a moderate chance to win control of the Senate, and virtually no one thought the party had much chance of winning the forty seats needed to control.the House^ In the walce of their party's astonishing election victory, Republicans embarked on an un­ precedented program to revolutionize'public policy in keeping with the party's campaign 'document, the ^'Contract' witfr America5;" Suddenly, politics in Washington were not as usual. If these events caught seasoned observers by surprise, how can students hope to make sense of politics? To be sure, predicting politics is difficult, and complete prediction lies, outside the reach of us all. Fortunately, it is easier to make sense of politics after the fact. In The Challenge of Democracy, Fourth Edition, we present a conceptual framework to help explain "what's going on" in N politics. Our framework consists of five concepts dealing with the funda­ mental issues of what govemiitent tries to do and how it decides to do it. These concepts fall into two groups. The concepts of freedom, order, and? equality relate to how values shape the goals that a government tries to accomplish. We discuss these values in Chapter 1. The concepts of ma-, joritarian democracy and pluralist democracy refer to two competing models of government that are used to illustrate the dynamics of the American political system. We treat these alternative models of democ-. racy in Chapter 2. In this supplement to The Challenge of Democracy, Fourth Edition, we employ these five concepts in helping to understand the "Republican Revolution" led by Speaker of the House, Newt Gin­ grich. We contend that the extraordinary electoral and congressional events of 1994-95 are readily interpretable within our conceptual frame­ work. In the pages below, we discuss the major political events during the past year: the 1994 congressional campaign and election results; the si vi Preface making of the Contract with America; the fundamental changes in the, Section One: The Republican Party and House of Representatives, as engineered by the new Republicafa niajiority,' Responsible Party Government contests for power involving the House, Senate, and presidency; the Re­ publican Party's record in fulfilling its Contract; important shifts in re­ The day after the 1994 election, both*the print.and broadcast media sponsibilities between national and state governments; and dramatic tagged the event,as the "Republican Revolution."1 This'ph'rase exaggert struggles oyer government policies in the, fields of affirmative action^ ates a bit, as the 1994 election and its legislative consequences pale iii welfare, crime, taxation, and regulation. To orient you in reading about comparison with the American, French, dc Russian revolutions. But judg­ these, deyelopments, yjq (oreshado\y jfjve key arguments: , ments are relative, and in the context of pontemporary American politics, the Republicans-have <cause to call their"victory and subsequent behavior 1. .The, iGontract with America; the centerpiece of the Republican Revo­ "revolutionary." Let's look first at how unusual the 1994 congressional lution, and!1 rnuch of the party's legislative agenda in the House o| election was'. *• , Representatives, is more libertariari in philosophy than conservative. 2. The Contract; itself can be viewed as an attempt at party government Results of the 1994 Election in keeping with the model of majoritarian democracy. As shown in Figure la, the 1994 election was only the third since 1930— &. Despite the fnajoritarian thrust of the Contract with America, pluralist and the first since 1946—in which Republicans won a majority of the vote deriiocracy is still practiced in the halls'of Congress. 4. ^Although the Contract with-America was -proposed by members of the' .HouseJ soihe of its provisions woulH increase tbe poyer of the president at th§ expense of CQngress. t t * 5. Although the .Contract'with .America was based on a philosophy of limited government, some of its provisions "-wppld increase the national >. government's responsibilities. <I On September 27, 1994, over three hundred.Republican,candidates for the House of Representatives in the NoVember congressional election gathered on the steps of the Capitol. They,were summoned by the party.to sign the Con­ tract with America, their collective campaign pledge. Atthetime, the-gather- ing was regarded by most observers more as a campaign gimmick,than an historic, occasion, but events proved otherwise. 2 Interpreting the Republican Revolution of 1994-1995 .• Supplement 3 K r> for the House of Representatives. Figure lb illustrates that it was only the 572% 57.6%, third election since 1930—and the first since 1952^-in which'Republicans 55 •won a'majority of the House seats. Most amazingly, no Republican, in­ 52.4% cumbents were defeated in their races for Congress^or goveriiorships, compared'with .the defeat'of two Democratic Senators, five'jDemocratic Governors, and.thirty-five Democratic Representatives. Despite,all thev pre-election publicity given to limiting (;he terms of members of Congress^ E 4E and all the talk against-officeholders, the voters > in 1994 did'not revolt L 41.4% ,45.5%. against incumbents: they revolted against Democrats.' * » Consider the outcome of the Senate 'elections-.-To control the Senate, the Republican^ needed "a^net gain of seven, out of the'thirty-five seats up 39.6% 40.6% for election. They'^ained eight. Moreover, all eleyen;of the new persons 35' • '''"'•• ' i i •! t - .. , , , elected to the*£enate were Republicans. Although .only- two Democratic 1932 1936 1946 195? 1964 ' 1974 1982 1994 incumbents Were1 defeated, the Republicans won1 every coritesj in whiclj i ^E^paa Dempcrats Republicans, the" incumbent hail retired. To, rub salt in the Democrats' wounds, a former Democratic Senator (Richard Shelby of Alabama) switched parties, after the'election, and another (Ben Nighthorse'GampbelUof Colorado) 350 31 IT3?!' became a Republican early in 1995. As a result, the'.'Republicanls the}d 300 fifty-four-of the one hundred seats in tfre 104th Congress. * , < * »The Democrats fared even worse in the House elections'. The Republi­ 250 cans'needed a net gain of forty seats'to control^ the House—a .Herculean "13 task, given that the most seats that the party 'ever gained in congressional J 200 elections since 1948 (was forty-seven during'the Vietnam era^the.next most was thirty-three). In,fact, the party gained fifty-tiwo seats'while'not 150 1 E suffering the loss of a single RepubHcan-mcumberit." Moreover) another Democrat, Nathan D^al ofGeorgia, later switchea.parties.^ As ^re§ulf,-the 100 Republicans firmly1 CQritrolledjKe H^useih-^he 104th Congress ^ith 23,1 M17 of"-the435$eats. \*jtf > " \ A •* '--*"<' ** * 5 50 •A J u. ?* 7 J -J-4 1 1 L. J 1 I I I I • -i—i—i—i—i i i i i i _i i i 1932 1936 1946 1958 1964 *1 1974 1982 1994 ^xplajining llfte Election Results': 1 !"»•»•• Democrats Republicans VVhyt did'the, Republicans'score, suc^a-^weeping'-victbry in the* 1994 FJGURE1 A Revolutionary Election *** " * » elections? At the ,ou,tset, .one must recognize that the *Republican" trhimpft ran against"the three factOrs-^-seats:at-risk, presideritial,popularity;'and ^he 1994 election was a historic election for Republican candidates for the economic cQnditions-:--that*"pJoHtical*«qientists have'used successfully ^o House -of Representatives' whether measured by votes won or seats won. Figure I predict the outcome of congressional elections in the past.2' Although' la plots